Irvin Muchnick has gotten a continuance for a temporary injunction hearing while he desperately tries to negotiate a settlement as the defendant in a defamation and invasion of privacy lawsuit.
According to court papers, the parties are close to a settlement. My guess is that the plaintiffs believe they won't be able to collect any money from failed writer Muchnick, so they'll likely accept an apology and some sort of retraction. We'll see.
It's difficult to digest that someone as evil as Muchnick can go through life wreaking havoc without any consequences.
It brings up an interesting legal point, though. An insolvent writer could publish any kind of libel or defamation he or she wanted, knowing there would be no real penalty.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Devastating Amended Complaint in Muchnick Defamation Case
We just reviewed the 38-page amended complaint in the Irvin Muchnick defamation suit. We were going to publish it in its entirety, but it contains sensitive material, including the home address of the defendant. This is an astonishing document. Branding a minor as a sexual assailant without proof is unconscionable. The alleged charges are all taken from Muchnick's blog, in his own words. To be honest, we can't see a defense for these allegations. One would think the serious accusations facing Muchnick would slow down his tabloid ranting. It hasn't. In our opinion, that alone speaks volumes about his mental state.
One of the more interesting revelations is that Muchnick broke the law by claiming his website is incorporated, when it apparently is not. Without corporate protection, Muchnick could be on the hook for a lot of money.
The complaint is loaded with screen shots from Muchnick's blog.
A preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled for June 25 at 9:30 a.m. The judge will decide if Muchnick must cease, desist and/or remove his potentially slanderous material.
Anyone know if it's possible to claim insanity in a civil case?
One of the more interesting revelations is that Muchnick broke the law by claiming his website is incorporated, when it apparently is not. Without corporate protection, Muchnick could be on the hook for a lot of money.
The complaint is loaded with screen shots from Muchnick's blog.
A preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled for June 25 at 9:30 a.m. The judge will decide if Muchnick must cease, desist and/or remove his potentially slanderous material.
Anyone know if it's possible to claim insanity in a civil case?
Monday, June 3, 2013
Opinion On Muchnick Defamation Lawsuit
I have made no bones about my disdain for Irvin Muchnick. Frankly, I don't care what happens to the guy. The hatred began when he tried to make a philosophical point by stopping a class action settlement that deprived money to thousands, including myself.
Legally, he had that right. Morally, he did not. In 2011, the Court of Appeals upheld his objection in a 2-1 decision. It was the definition of winning on a technicality. The only thing Muchnick accomplished was to make sure freelance writers never see a penny for damages caused by publishers and data bases.
Just when it seemed like there would be no justice for his cowardly act, Muchnick broke the cardinal rule of journalism and now could pay the price. Schadenfreude or no schadenfreude, a lot of people were happy when he was slapped with a defamation and invasion of privacy lawsuit.
Muchnick accused a minor of being a sexual assailant. That is an undisputed fact. He did not say alleged assailant, he said assailant. The minor and his parents have emphatically denied any wrong doing. No charges of any kind were filed. Muchnick went so far as to publish the minor's name and produce several documents on his website that were supposed to be protected under Maryland state law. As he awaits trial, Muchnick signed a consent decree to redact the minor's name and documents.
Like he did when objecting to the freelance settlement, Muchnick has been able to persuade an attorney to represent him pro bono. Of course, that will mean little if he loses the $1 million suit.
The legal system will decide if Muchnick's actions resulted in a tort against the minor. But in the name of real journalists everywhere, there will be a loud chorus of cheers if he is held responsible.
Legally, he had that right. Morally, he did not. In 2011, the Court of Appeals upheld his objection in a 2-1 decision. It was the definition of winning on a technicality. The only thing Muchnick accomplished was to make sure freelance writers never see a penny for damages caused by publishers and data bases.
Just when it seemed like there would be no justice for his cowardly act, Muchnick broke the cardinal rule of journalism and now could pay the price. Schadenfreude or no schadenfreude, a lot of people were happy when he was slapped with a defamation and invasion of privacy lawsuit.
Muchnick accused a minor of being a sexual assailant. That is an undisputed fact. He did not say alleged assailant, he said assailant. The minor and his parents have emphatically denied any wrong doing. No charges of any kind were filed. Muchnick went so far as to publish the minor's name and produce several documents on his website that were supposed to be protected under Maryland state law. As he awaits trial, Muchnick signed a consent decree to redact the minor's name and documents.
Like he did when objecting to the freelance settlement, Muchnick has been able to persuade an attorney to represent him pro bono. Of course, that will mean little if he loses the $1 million suit.
The legal system will decide if Muchnick's actions resulted in a tort against the minor. But in the name of real journalists everywhere, there will be a loud chorus of cheers if he is held responsible.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)